After a short-lived attempt to begin to list disciplines (health communication, social marketing, media relations,health promotion), the suggestion was made and generally agreed to that an organizing principle should be that people self-identify into the network and that no specific disciplinary background should be a basis for inclusion. It sounded like most people also agreed that the network should be open to anyone interested in or practicing social marketing in any field (i.e., people working outside of public health).

What should the scope of the network be?

Here the choices focused on whether the network have a domestic (US) focus or be global in nature. The sense was that global was preferred to facilitate learning and resource exchanges across countries, cultures and contexts.

What should the structure of the network become?

The current existence of many informal networks (list serve, webinars, use of new media) is one model that could be expanded and supported. The sense of the group leaned more towards a formal organization, primarily as it was believed that this would facilitate the development of the discipline, standards of practice, a professional identity and establish a platform for advocacy. An alternative model, carving out a specific interest section in existing organizations (Public Relations Society of America, American Marketing Association), was also suggested by a few people.

Comments

Thanks for posting this summary. I was disappointed I had to miss that session because of another meeting I had at the same time. I'll check out the discussion on the wiki. What are the next steps for this?